Victor Day v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Nebraska Pill Soon Song, 83 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Victor Day v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Nebraska Pill Soon Song, 83 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Temple v. Inhabitants of the City of Belfast
D. Me. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Dewey v. University of New Hampshire, 694 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1982) (noting failure of due process claim because plaintiff could not assert property interest in "specific level of salaiy increase”); see also Day v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Nebraska, 911 F.Supp. 1228, 1241 (D.Neb.1995) (holding that plaintiff could not claim property interest in salary increases because he pointed to no sources of such entitlement), aff'd, 83 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 1996); Kanter v. Community Consolidated Sch.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Victor Day
v.
Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska Pill Soon Song
95-4073.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
May 22, 1996.
83 F.3d 1040
Published

83 F.3d 1040

Victor DAY, Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA; Pill Soon
Song, Appellees.

No. 95-4073NE.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 1996.
Decided May 22, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska; David Plester, Magistrate Judge.

James C. Zalewski, argued, Lincoln, NE, for appellant.

David R. Buntain, argued, Lincoln, NE (John C. Wiltse, on the brief), for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Victor Day appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in Day's civil rights action. Day v. Board of Regents, 911 F.Supp. 1228 (D.Neb.1995). Day contends the University of Nebraska's decision to pay him less than other professors in his department was age-based and deprived him of an array of constitutional rights. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude Day is not entitled to relief. Because the controlling law is clear, our review satisfies us that an opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.